9 year old girl shot yesterday...

polaris_x · January 2011

some people actually think it's a good idea that ordinary citizens can walk around packing heat all day? ... it gets scarier by the moment ...

MG79478 · January 2011

dunkman wrote:

MG79478 wrote:

I don't think that death is way more likely with a gun. Would you rather get shot in the leg, or beat in the head with an aluminum baseball bat 40 times?

how can you even justify that?

and your 'would you rather get shot..." example is very very poor indeed... at least make it like for like... either you get hit on the head with the bat once compared to being shot in the head once... or you shoot someone in the leg then the other comparison is to hit the person in the leg with a bat...

your example is horrendously weak... it's like me saying "would you rather get shot in the foot or have an anvil land on your head"

if you are going to compare things then at least make them like for like.

It wasn't meant to be a direct comparison, it was meant to show that a bat can be worse than a gun. Either can be lethal or not, both are a tool, and the person decides how to use it.

Ok, so a guy breaks in to your house, he has only a baseball bat. He beats you within an inch of your life with a bat, and then does the same thing to your wife and kids. Then he takes most of your valuables, your PJ vinyl too. If you and your entire family survive the savage beating, you are scarred physically and emotionally for life. Let’s say your son has a limp for life, and your daughter can’t sleep at night, your wife dies from complications due to her injuries. Meanwhile the guy is out on the street; the only lead the detectives had from the crime scene was a “vote Obama” pin the intruder dropped.

If you had a gun, best case you confront the intruder while your wife calls the cops. Nobody gets hurt. Or maybe the guy won’t stop, you shoot him in the leg, which incapacitates him until the cops arrive. Worst case with a gun, the intruder dies. Nobody wants that to happen.

So would you rather get beaten in the above scenario with a baseball bat, and hold on to your silly “guns are bad” talking points? Or would you rather stop the intruder, using only as much force as necessary, to protect your family? Is the health and well being of a criminal intruder (and your anti-gun agenda), worth more than the health and well being of your family?

MG79478 · January 2011

redrock wrote:

MG79478 wrote:

I don't think that death is way more likely with a gun. Would you rather get shot in the leg, or beat in the head with an aluminum baseball bat 40 times?

Well... in this case 6 people got shot before others subdued the madman. If, in this situation, this madman had a bat and was beating someone's head in enough to kill, do you honestly think he would have been able to kill all 6 people before being subdued? Even with a knife? Honestly.... Would have have been able to even kill a second person? If he was not armed, this little girl (and others) would probably still be alive.

That makes no sense. The guy had an intent to kill, he was crazy. He would have certainly brought more than a bat if he had no gun. He probably would have used a vehicle, or bomb, or something more destructive than a gun, and MORE people would have been killed and injured.

polaris_x wrote:

some people actually think it's a good idea that ordinary citizens can walk around packing heat all day? ... it gets scarier by the moment ...

That is such a biased view of the world. Someone could carry a gun legally for 90 years of their life and never fire it once for protection. You'd have to be a moron to think that just because you have it that you have to use it. If more people were carrying guns, someone could have stopped this lunatic. If you take away guns from the law abiding citizens, the bad guys know that you can't stop them!

dunkman · January 2011

MG79478 wrote:

dunkman wrote:

MG79478 wrote:

I don't think that death is way more likely with a gun. Would you rather get shot in the leg, or beat in the head with an aluminum baseball bat 40 times?

how can you even justify that?

and your 'would you rather get shot..." example is very very poor indeed... at least make it like for like... either you get hit on the head with the bat once compared to being shot in the head once... or you shoot someone in the leg then the other comparison is to hit the person in the leg with a bat...

your example is horrendously weak... it's like me saying "would you rather get shot in the foot or have an anvil land on your head"

if you are going to compare things then at least make them like for like.

It wasn't meant to be a direct comparison, it was meant to show that a bat can be worse than a gun. Either can be lethal or not, both are a tool, and the person decides how to use it.

Ok, so a guy breaks in to your house, he has only a baseball bat. He beats you within an inch of your life with a bat, and then does the same thing to your wife and kids. Then he takes most of your valuables, your PJ vinyl too. If you and your entire family survive the savage beating, you are scarred physically and emotionally for life. Let’s say your son has a limp for life, and your daughter can’t sleep at night, your wife dies from complications due to her injuries. Meanwhile the guy is out on the street; the only lead the detectives had from the crime scene was a “vote Obama” pin the intruder dropped.

If you had a gun, best case you confront the intruder while your wife calls the cops. Nobody gets hurt. Or maybe the guy won’t stop, you shoot him in the leg, which incapacitates him until the cops arrive. Worst case with a gun, the intruder dies. Nobody wants that to happen.

So would you rather get beaten in the above scenario with a baseball bat, and hold on to your silly “guns are bad” talking points? Or would you rather stop the intruder, using only as much force as necessary, to protect your family? Is the health and well being of a criminal intruder (and your anti-gun agenda), worth more than the health and well being of your family?

if you answer Redrock's scenario then I'll answer yours

anyway, where i live your above scenario wouldnt happen. I live in a civilised country dude, not fucking Rwanda or Somalia or heavens forbid Philadelphia... I can't fear something that might happen... if that was the case i'd be stocking up on canned meat for the impending World War 3, which will of course be caused by the glorious militia of the US rising up against their overpowering and restrictive democracy.

redrock · January 2011

MG79478 wrote:

redrock wrote:

MG79478 wrote:

I don't think that death is way more likely with a gun. Would you rather get shot in the leg, or beat in the head with an aluminum baseball bat 40 times?

Well... in this case 6 people got shot before others subdued the madman. If, in this situation, this madman had a bat and was beating someone's head in enough to kill, do you honestly think he would have been able to kill all 6 people before being subdued? Even with a knife? Honestly.... Would have have been able to even kill a second person? If he was not armed, this little girl (and others) would probably still be alive.

That makes no sense. The guy had an intent to kill, he was crazy. He would have certainly brought more than a bat if he had no gun. He probably would have used a vehicle, or bomb, or something more destructive than a gun, and MORE people would have been killed and injured.

Of course it makes sense. You say he would have used something more destructive than a gun - a bomb for example (now how easy is it to get your hands on a bomb? Not very). He was crazy, he had a gun. Nothing says that if he didn't have that readily available, he would have acted on his impulse. It's making way too many assumptions.

redrock · January 2011

MG79478 wrote:

If more people were carrying guns, someone could have stopped this lunatic.

Or, as most people do not know how to react in an emergency and panic, there would have been even more bullets flying all over the place and more people killed and hurt. Having had basic training on how to shoot your gun does not prepare you for such situations. And this is not just for guns but also for self defense, etc.

JonnyPistachio · January 2011

MG79478 wrote:

It wasn't meant to be a direct comparison, it was meant to show that a bat can be worse than a gun. Either can be lethal or not, both are a tool, and the person decides how to use it.

Ok, so a guy breaks in to your house, he has only a baseball bat. He beats you within an inch of your life with a bat, and then does the same thing to your wife and kids. Then he takes most of your valuables, your PJ vinyl too. If you and your entire family survive the savage beating, you are scarred physically and emotionally for life. Let’s say your son has a limp for life, and your daughter can’t sleep at night, your wife dies from complications due to her injuries. Meanwhile the guy is out on the street; the only lead the detectives had from the crime scene was a “vote Obama” pin the intruder dropped.

If you had a gun, best case you confront the intruder while your wife calls the cops. Nobody gets hurt. Or maybe the guy won’t stop, you shoot him in the leg, which incapacitates him until the cops arrive. Worst case with a gun, the intruder dies. Nobody wants that to happen.

So would you rather get beaten in the above scenario with a baseball bat, and hold on to your silly “guns are bad” talking points? Or would you rather stop the intruder, using only as much force as necessary, to protect your family? Is the health and well being of a criminal intruder (and your anti-gun agenda), worth more than the health and well being of your family?

Come on man, we can make up a million different "What ifs"...
but you want my answer? it all depends on if you're caught by surprise or not. If I have a gun, and this guy with the bat catches you by suprise with his Obama pin, I am still fucked and my family is fucked, because as a responsible gun owner, my gun is locked up and if I'm caught by surprise it is useless.

But I dont own a gun, and if someone came into my house with a bat and I wanst surprised, he'd have along night ahead of him and he'd be eating his meals through a straw for the rest of his life. If he had a gun, I'd still be fucked.

Remeber that thing you posted about the MArine saying that when both have a gun, the playing field is level - -well, no its not. Too many factors.

And I honestly cant believe I am discussing the differences between usiong a bat and a gun. You seriously dont get the difference?

MG79478 wrote:

Then he takes most of your valuables, your PJ vinyl too.

lets not get too crazy here, we all know when PJ Vinyls are involved leathal force will overtake all.

dunkman · January 2011

MG79478 wrote:

redrock wrote:

MG79478 wrote:

I don't think that death is way more likely with a gun. Would you rather get shot in the leg, or beat in the head with an aluminum baseball bat 40 times?

Well... in this case 6 people got shot before others subdued the madman. If, in this situation, this madman had a bat and was beating someone's head in enough to kill, do you honestly think he would have been able to kill all 6 people before being subdued? Even with a knife? Honestly.... Would have have been able to even kill a second person? If he was not armed, this little girl (and others) would probably still be alive.

That makes no sense. The guy had an intent to kill, he was crazy. He would have certainly brought more than a bat if he had no gun. He probably would have used a vehicle, or bomb, or something more destructive than a gun, and MORE people would have been killed and injured.

something MORE destructive? but i thought his point was that he wanted to destroy as many people as possible? If so then why did he use a gun? why not a bomb? Maybe it was because he could legally acquire a gun and that as Columbine showed its actually pretty difficult to make a bomb?

but his point was to kill as many as possible... thats why he tried to reload... don't you see the pattern? All these multiple death massacres are by people using guns... because its the easiest and most effective way of doing it... if it wasnt they'd use that hallowed 'something else' surely?

but, as usual, you have skipped the point of Redrock's post... the scenario is the same as Arizona, but instead its set in ohhhhh lets say leafy Buckinghamshire in England... instead of the gun, the mental guy has a bat... how many people would he kill before being tackled by the crowd?

Probably nil.

redrock · January 2011

MG79478 wrote:

If more people were carrying guns, someone could have stopped this lunatic. If you take away guns from the law abiding citizens, the bad guys know that you can't stop them!

Well... coming to think about it, I guess I need to assume that Loughner was one of those 'law abiding citizens' as he purchased his gun legally?

MG79478 · January 2011

dunkman wrote:

if you answer Redrock's scenario then I'll answer yours

anyway, where i live your above scenario wouldnt happen. I live in a civilised country dude, not fucking Rwanda or Somalia or heavens forbid Philadelphia... I can't fear something that might happen... if that was the case i'd be stocking up on canned meat for the impending World War 3, which will of course be caused by the glorious militia of the US rising up against their overpowering and restrictive democracy.

I've already fully addressed Redrock's scenario, and having dealt with him in the past, know that was already too much time spent on him.

Again, you look at just one aspect of the picture. You don't own a gun for just one reason. Part of having one is to be prepared if the worst is to happen. You act like being the slight bit prepared for emergencies makes you a lunatic. I guess I'm crazy for having an emergency flashlight and weather radio too. I'm sorry, it's the duty of any responisible parent/spouse to protect their family. You have no idea what your future holds. No one thinks that it's going to happen them, and when it happens, no one thought it would happen to them. Might as well be prepared, hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

Oh, and for the one millionth time, the US is not a democracy.

MG79478 · January 2011

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Come on man, we can make up a million different "What ifs"...

We could, but the point is, the health and well being of some criminal intent to harm you is meaningless compared to the health and well being of your family. Faced with that situation, you would use whatever was at your disposal to protect them. Even Barrack himself said recently, “If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun” If the criminal brings a gun, the playing field will at worst be level.

redrock wrote:

MG79478 wrote:

If more people were carrying guns, someone could have stopped this lunatic.

Or, as most people do not know how to react in an emergency and panic, there would have been even more bullets flying all over the place and more people killed and hurt. Having had basic training on how to shoot your gun does not prepare you for such situations. And this is not just for guns but also for self defense, etc.

Or the guy next to him could have put him down the instant he drew his weapon. Who knows in a crowd?
Take the VT shootings a few years ago, it wasn't a crowd situation, it was one guy walking from class room to class room killing defenseless people. He knew that you couldn't have a gun on campus, so it was easy for him. Without a doubt that would have ended better if more people would have had weapons.

But you guys keep missing the point that banning all guns MIGHT have saved lives here, it might have cost more. BUT the repercussions of that are the problem. More lives lost and more crime due to the lack of guns in the right hands.

redrock wrote:

Of course it makes sense. You say he would have used something more destructive than a gun - a bomb for example (now how easy is it to get your hands on a bomb? Not very). He was crazy, he had a gun. Nothing says that if he didn't have that readily available, he would have acted on his impulse. It's making way too many assumptions.

You can't be serious. My first real job as a teenager was working in a hardware store. We were actually briefed on what suspicious purchases looked like, because someone could pretty easily buy the pieces to make a bomb. They make those IED bombs in the Middle East out of stuff that would make Macgyver proud.

dunkman wrote:

something MORE destructive? but i thought his point was that he wanted to destroy as many people as possible? If so then why did he use a gun? why not a bomb? Maybe it was because he could legally acquire a gun and that as Columbine showed its actually pretty difficult to make a bomb?

but his point was to kill as many as possible... thats why he tried to reload... don't you see the pattern? All these multiple death massacres are by people using guns... because its the easiest and most effective way of doing it... if it wasnt they'd use that hallowed 'something else' surely?

but, as usual, you have skipped the point of Redrock's post... the scenario is the same as Arizona, but instead its set in ohhhhh lets say leafy Buckinghamshire in England... instead of the gun, the mental guy has a bat... how many people would he kill before being tackled by the crowd?

Probably nil.

Again, I have completely addressed Redrock's silly post. Sorry if you missed it.

I thought his goal was to hurt the senator? This is the first time I have heard anyone say his intentions were to just hurt people in general.

redrock · January 2011

MG79478 wrote:

But you guys keep missing the point that banning all guns MIGHT have saved lives here, it might have cost more. BUT the repercussions of that are the problem. More lives lost and more crime due to the lack of guns in the right hands.

Again... where is this mention of banning all guns? But you do admit 'might' have saved lives

And again... guns in the right hands - I suppose those are the hands of law abiding citizens as it would seem the discussion returns to those people who can legally purchase guns (ie after 'checks' they have no police record, etc. therefore 'law abiding').

You mention the VT massacre. Cho was yet another law abiding citizen who had his guns legally, just like Loughner. Food for thought, maybe?

And yes, I remember crossing paths with you when you got all flustered and ruffled about someone posting a certain link to a certain show. But that was ages ago. And also, I'm a she, not a he. Thank you.

mikepegg44 · January 2011

redrock wrote:

And again... guns in the right hands - I suppose those are the hands of law abiding citizens as it would seem the discussion returns to those people who can legally purchase guns (ie after 'checks' they have no police record, etc. therefore 'law abiding').

You mention the VT massacre. Cho was yet another law abiding citizen who had his guns legally, just like Loughner. Food for thought, maybe?

you are right, as soon as someone proves they are no longer a law abiding citizen they should not be allowed to own firearms. But you cannot have thought police. you cannot ever know the motivations of a nut. Until someone proves otherwise they should have the rights the rest of us all enjoy...and all of our rights should not be limited because of a small amount of dopes...otherwise no one would be able to leave their house...which they probably wouldn't be able to own because some people by houses and commit crimes in them...If I use my house to sell drugs do I forever forfeit my right to own a house? Do we limit housing sales to everyone because of it?

dunkman · January 2011

MG79478 wrote:

Or the guy next to him could have put him down the instant he drew his weapon. Who knows in a crowd?
Take the VT shootings a few years ago, it wasn't a crowd situation, it was one guy walking from class room to class room killing defenseless people. He knew that you couldn't have a gun on campus, so it was easy for him. Without a doubt that would have ended better if more people would have had weapons.

it would have ended better if NO-ONE had a weapon.

dunkman · January 2011

MG79478 wrote:

dunkman wrote:

something MORE destructive? but i thought his point was that he wanted to destroy as many people as possible? If so then why did he use a gun? why not a bomb? Maybe it was because he could legally acquire a gun and that as Columbine showed its actually pretty difficult to make a bomb?

but his point was to kill as many as possible... thats why he tried to reload... don't you see the pattern? All these multiple death massacres are by people using guns... because its the easiest and most effective way of doing it... if it wasnt they'd use that hallowed 'something else' surely?

but, as usual, you have skipped the point of Redrock's post... the scenario is the same as Arizona, but instead its set in ohhhhh lets say leafy Buckinghamshire in England... instead of the gun, the mental guy has a bat... how many people would he kill before being tackled by the crowd?

Probably nil.

I thought his goal was to hurt the senator? This is the first time I have heard anyone say his intentions were to just hurt people in general.

way to skip the point... how many people would Loughner have killed with just a bat?

also... if his goal was to only hurt the senator then why not stop after he shot her first? why did he try and reload?

mikepegg44 · January 2011

dunkman wrote:

MG79478 wrote:

dunkman wrote:

something MORE destructive? but i thought his point was that he wanted to destroy as many people as possible? If so then why did he use a gun? why not a bomb? Maybe it was because he could legally acquire a gun and that as Columbine showed its actually pretty difficult to make a bomb?

but his point was to kill as many as possible... thats why he tried to reload... don't you see the pattern? All these multiple death massacres are by people using guns... because its the easiest and most effective way of doing it... if it wasnt they'd use that hallowed 'something else' surely?

but, as usual, you have skipped the point of Redrock's post... the scenario is the same as Arizona, but instead its set in ohhhhh lets say leafy Buckinghamshire in England... instead of the gun, the mental guy has a bat... how many people would he kill before being tackled by the crowd?

Probably nil.

I thought his goal was to hurt the senator? This is the first time I have heard anyone say his intentions were to just hurt people in general.

way to skip the point... how many people would Loughner have killed with just a bat?

also... if his goal was to only hurt the senator then why not stop after he shot her first? why did he try and reload?

what about this bat?

dunkman · January 2011

mikepegg44 wrote:

what about this bat?

yep.. that bat.

i'll have you a race right... you take that bat into a crowded mall tomorrow and I'll take a gun... lets see who kills the most the quickest right? you on?

I'm now off to the betting shop to place the deeds of my house and all my money on me winning.

mikepegg44 · January 2011

dunkman wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

what about this bat?

yep.. that bat.

i'll have you a race right... you take that bat into a crowded mall tomorrow and I'll take a gun... lets see who kills the most the quickest right? you on?

I'm now off to the betting shop to place the deeds of my house and all my money on me winning.

I can do mine silently, where as you will attract a lot of attention...wait, should we be talking about this?

Blockhead · January 2011

dunkman wrote:

MG79478 wrote:

Or the guy next to him could have put him down the instant he drew his weapon. Who knows in a crowd?
Take the VT shootings a few years ago, it wasn't a crowd situation, it was one guy walking from class room to class room killing defenseless people. He knew that you couldn't have a gun on campus, so it was easy for him. Without a doubt that would have ended better if more people would have had weapons.

it would have ended better if NO-ONE had a weapon.

Weapons do not cause people to committ crimes. The violent crime rate is higher in the UK than in the US, how is that possible without guns... :roll:

MG79478 · January 2011

dunkman wrote:

way to skip the point... how many people would Loughner have killed with just a bat?

also... if his goal was to only hurt the senator then why not stop after he shot her first? why did he try and reload?

Let that stupid point go. It's been addressed, it's meaningless. How many people would he have killed with a bomb, or if he ran them over with his van, or with a chemical? The answer is more. Let's look at this logical (it'll be tough for you, but try). This guy was crazy, do you think access to a gun was going to stop him? Do you think he was just going to give up? Probably not, and chances are he would show up with something like a bomb, and not a bat. So drop it.

Well, I'll take your word on that he was reloading. If that was true, common sense would say he was trying to finish the job. Last I heard she was in the hospital and her condition was improving.

dunkman wrote:

it would have ended better if NO-ONE had a weapon.

Maybe a Unicorn could have flown down from the sky on a rainbow and stopped it from happening too.

9 year old girl shot yesterday...

Comments

Categories